United States v. Plato
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25976
| 7th Cir. | 2010Background
- Graham and Plato were jointly tried for distributing 50+ grams of crack cocaine, evidenced by a video of a sale in Springfield, Illinois.
- Plato agreed to cooperate but its cooperation fell through; his statements about the sale were not used at trial but could be used at sentencing.
- Graham asserted that joint trial with Plato violated his Sixth Amendment rights and sought severance; the district court denied severance.
- During deliberations, the jury requested a slow-motion replay of the surveillance video; Graham objected, Plato’s counsel did not, and the court allowed the replay.
- Plato did not testify; his counsel argued Graham was guilty, which Graham contends compromised his right to a fair trial; Graham was convicted along with Plato.
- Appellate counsel for Plato filed an Anders brief seeking withdrawal; Graham's appeal proceeded, focusing on severance and the videotape replay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the joint trial requires reversal or severance | Graham argues severance due to antagonistic defenses | Graham contends joint trial prejudices him | Waived; no reversible error; antagonistic defenses alone insufficient |
| Whether severance was required under Zafiro when defenses were antagonistic | Graham asserts antagonistic defenses require severance | Graham claims joint trial prejudicially affected him | Not required; Zafiro allows joint trials with cure by instructions |
| Whether replaying surveillance video in slow motion violated Sixth Amendment rights | Graham claims slow-motion replay prejudiced him | N/A | Not a Sixth Amendment violation; district court acted within discretion |
| Whether Plato's Anders brief arguments have merit and the appeal should be dismissed | N/A | Plato seeks dismissal as frivolous | Counsel's Anders brief affirmed; appeal dismissed for Plato |
| Whether any challenge to Plato's sentence would be frivolous | N/A | Plato challenges sentencing; appeal lacks merit | Sentence within guidelines; no nonfrivolous argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) (antagonistic defenses do not mandate severance)
- Hughes, 310 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 2002) (finger-pointing alone does not require severance)
- Mietus, 237 F.3d 866 (7th Cir. 2001) (mutually antagonistic defenses do not, absent prejudice, require severance)
- Alviar, 573 F.3d 526 (7th Cir. 2009) (waiver of severance motions when not renewed at close of evidence)
- Hofer, 995 F.2d 746 (7th Cir. 1993) (tape evidence and deliberations; courts may allow replay of evidence)
- Sachsenmaier, 491 F.3d 680 (7th Cir. 2007) (distribution includes constructive transfer even without handing physically)